American Psycho : Does Insanity Negate Responsibility?

Regardless of what you might see on TV the verdict of “not guilty by the reason of insanity” is an immensely rare plea for anyone. A majority of offenders with a mental illness still end up incarcerated. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world's population we account for 25% of the world's prisoners. Which converts to 2.2 million prisoners and about 1.2 million of those people have a mental illness (Fellner). Mental illness within our jails and prisons has become very prevalent within our correctional systems over the last 10 years. The number of men and women who have a mental illness that end up in jail or prison grows day by day. For those who do not go into the prison with a mental illness, will very likely develop some form of mental illness after being released from incarceration. The mentally ill do not belong in prison, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, and though it is originally meant for all of these purposes, it has lost its meaning. Correctional facilities are not built to provide treatment for the mentally ill, and the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness cannot get the long-term treatment they need inside of a prison cell.

Mental Illness has been prevalent all throughout our history from Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln to Sylvia Plath and so on. These illnesses can be as minor as a slight bipolar disorder or as severe as schizophrenia. In recent years, mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent in our criminal justice systems than anywhere else. Mental illness is becoming an association with crime and based on the information that has been found, this paper will attempt to further define the problem of mental illness within our criminal justice system and offer alternatives or insights as to how to possibly help with this problem.

The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity are excused from the fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing to pardon crimes to those who were deemed “mad”. By the 18th century the “ wild beast” test was developed by some English courts. However, the

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

The New York State Senate today passed legislation (S.1822), sponsored by Senator Frank Padavan (R-C, Bellerose), that would allow juries to find defendants "guilty but mentally ill" in cases where they believe the defendant may have been mentally ill at the time of the crime, but should still be held responsible for his or her actions.

"Not Guilty, By reason of Insanity!" These words have stung the ears of many courtroom observers, especially the families and friends of victims whose lives were snuffed out by a so-called 'insane' assailant. While there are indeed many insane people running around the streets today, I feel that many persons who use the temporary insanity defense are more conniving than insane. Also, being an inexact science, the psychiatric community often offers up differing opinions as to any particular individual's sanity. Furthermore, money or lack thereof can play a major role in the success or failure of an insanity defense. The temporary insanity defense should therefore be abolished, especially for felony offenses such as murder.

“A young African-American man shot and killed an Alabama police officer in 1981. He was examined in jail and found to be psychotic then and at the time of the killing. In 1982 the Alabama Lunacy Commission found him competent to stand trial, and he was sentenced to death. He was consistently described as psychotic in prison records; but another state forensic evaluation in 1988 again found him competent. After reviewing his records and examining him, I concluded that he had been psychotic when he killed the officer and was psychotic still. A federal appeals court judge ruled that the original trial had been unconstitutional because the defendant was not competent at the time. The prosecutor declined to retry him, and he was sent to a state mental hospital.”(Beck)

In the Hinckley trial, there were two contending interpretations of the cognitive requirement of insanity. Both the defense and the prosecution's interpretations hinged on Hinckley's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the crime committed, and to conform his conduct to lawful requirements (Bonnie, et al 49). The prosecutor argued that the meaning of appreciation excludes affective or emotional impairment, and only included cognitive factors. The prosecution relied on the precedence set in United States v. Brawner, that use the Model Penal Code's embracement of the M'Naghten test's prong of appreciation that Hinckley understood the moral consequences of his actions, and that mental illness did not matter (Bonnie, et al 50).

The concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold’s case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield’s case (1800), but the standart test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843). This case established the special verdict of ‚‘not guilty by reason of insanity‘.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, capital punishment is currently authorized in 31 of our 50 states and still creates a great deal of controversy due to the moral dilemma of consciously killing a human being. But, with the insanity defense, an individual who may face the death penalty has the chance of being proven innocent by reason of insanity, and therefore, may avoid capital punishment altogether. Not only will the defendant’s life be spared, but he or she may be able to reenter society as a free and respected

(2015). Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(4) ProQuest, Accessed 12 March 2017. This article focuses on the past, present and future of insanity defense. It is also based on the assumption that at the time the crime was committed, the defendant was not suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of differentiating right from wrong behavior and making them not legally accountable for the crime. This is a good and interesting article to me also because its easy to understand and read. This article gets straight to the point and gives full information of what the author is trying to say. I will be using this article in my project because I feel that with having a past, present and future article that is involved with insanity defense it will create good background for my reader and will be very interesting to read

The insanity defense of Andrea Yates: The country was absolutely appalled when it heard that Yates, a mother of five children, had killed each of her children resulting in a horrific family slaughter. There were extremely polarized feelings about this case- sympathy (concluding

As society has become more aware and sympathetic to mental illness we have become more wary of the insanity defense. We have restricted the use of and the definition of what a

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime